We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Warning: JavaScript is required for some functionalities of this page. Please enable the use of JavaScript in your browser. Log In
Register My Account
Log Out (%1$s)

We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.

Warning: JavaScript is required for some functionalities of this page. Please enable the use of JavaScript in your browser.

The Balrogs were demonic 'fallen' Maiar, spirits of fire who'd entered Melkor's service willingly (just as Sauron did) but who'd originally been created by Iluvatar.

Iluviatar created Maiar, not demonic beigns they did that themselves.

Why think that at all? We know that the Ring would work just fine for another Maia - Gandalf could have taken it if he'd wanted to, and Saruman of course wanted it for himself. The catch was that if they had done, they'd have ended up being just like Sauron, which was why Gandalf said he didn't dare have anything to do with it. As the Balrogs were Maiar and already extremely evil, it seems sensible to imagine that the Ring would have served one of them just fine as well. The only thing it wouldn't have done would have been to render them invisible when they wore it. And yes, a Balrog with the Ring would by implication have been pretty much unstoppable, because it'd have had its own considerable power plus most of that of Sauron.

Balrog with the ring, would become pretty much like Sauron with the Ring, no plus.

As for the will of Morgoth - no, it didn't really work like that. Because Morgoth had been cast out of the world into the Void, he was outside time and so his will could no longer affect Middle-earth. However, an impersonal evil that had come from him was still around because before he'd been cast out, he'd expended most of his power to extend a subtle, evil influence over the whole world, so that it couldn't be removed by any means short of destroying everything.

The will of morgoth is vanished to the void, the only evil left is residual from his malice so no "impersonal" evil, its just residual influence. thats all-.

I am assuming you mean, WotR (War of the Ring), rather than World of Warcraft ...

It can not be said that Smaug was 'bred', at least not in the sense of coming out of someone's 'stable': after the War of Wrath, those dragons that fled the ruin of Thangorodrim and Beleriand hid themselves in the wastes to the east, and continued to breed on their own; Smaug was 'the greatest [of these]' in the third millennium of the Third Age; in RotK, AppB, Gandalf does remark that Sauron might have used Smaug to terrible effect during WotR, but this is not phrased so as to insist that Sauron had created, and could command or coerce, Smaug, and I believe the author intended to suggest other forms of manipulation.

I apologise for any nit-picking, but it would be possible for others to think you were suggesting that Sauron (or someone else) bred Smaug, intentionally, and had intended to command him in the WotR, and neither proposition is true, nor even plausible. You were quite correct to point out that Smaug was not a 'First Age' (nor even 'Second Age') dragon.

As an aside: there may have been other dragon populations (wherever: east of Thangorodrim) that had been established by creatures who had escaped Morgoth's 'stable' at an earlier time, or had been intentionally sent out by Morgoth. To my knowledge, the author has written nothing to confirm (or deny) this proposition: I am speculating; on one hand, Morgoth seemed to prefer to use his dragons 'unleashed'; on the other, they are portrayed as willful, ornery, and self-indulgent creatures, and they were perhaps wont to ignore any commands they found inconvenient, unless sufficient power was brought immediately and directly to bear to coerce them (something difficult, but by no means impossible, for even Morgoth to achieve).

This specific sort of mindless thing really bugs me ... neither would willingly 'pick a fight' with the other: too-much personal risk, for too-little gain; the One Ring might be worth it, but nothing lesser would suffice, and no dragon would covet the One Ring* (except, perhaps, as bedding material), anyway, and would therefore concede the contest.

*another aside: nothing demonstrates ignorance of Tolkien's work more than questions like, "why didn't the Eagles fly Frodo to Mordor?" The answer is really, really, really simple: it's nothing to do with them; they could never be compelled to understand the need. The (any magic) Ring is 'a people thing', not 'an eagle thing', nor 'a dragon thing'; why don't these same people complain that the Eagles (during the expedition to Erebor) didn't serve Bilbo and dwarves a breakfast of waffles, whipped cream, and syrup ... ? The case of Bombadil is similar, as Gandalf hints, as in his 'failure to interact at all with the One Ruling Ring, and vice versa' is portrayed as a feature of his nature, even if only by virtue of choice: "[Bombadil] is his own master".

Now, the Balrog is a creature that is 'enough-like people' to understand how-and-why and to-what-end to use such an artifact, providing he perceived it at all, and also apprehended its significance: this Maia is a creature used to manifesting power, derived naturally from its own fea, through the means of investment in its own hroa, but knows (of) 'people-ways'; 'sword' and 'whip' are tools it is wont to wield, and we can effortlessly presume 'ring' could fall into the same category. As I said earlier, a Balrog with the One Ring would become more-terrible in its native powers by 'an order of magnitude' yet, nevertheless, would not present the same style of threat as Sauron/Saruman/Gandalf, or even one of the high lords of the Eldar. He would, of course, have to know of it in the first place: he was 'asleep', until Third Age 1980-ish; how up-to-date on current events could he be expected to be?.

I'll suggest something else that no one has mentioned hitherto.

The influence of the One Ring, as portrayed in the text, possesses a certain character, very much as if the Ring itself possessed its own psyche and personality: this fea can only be 'cloned-Sauron' stuff; in this context, we can perhaps think of the Ring as a Sauron-version of "Mini-Me"... In this, we apprehend the true peril of the Ring: any 'person of power' bonded to the Ring would become Sauron, perhaps in the same fashion that reincarnated-Gandalf "became" Saruman; even Frodo's transformation follows this form; poor Gollum, presumably lacking any significant willpower of his own, became dominated by the Ring's 'persona' and enslaved to it.

So, while the Ring would make the Balrog a Super-Balrog, it would also 'expand the horizons of its vision', and transform it into Super-Balrog-that-is-also-Sauron.

Balrog with the ring, would become pretty much like Sauron with the Ring, no plus.

I didn't say whether a Balrog with the Ring would have been more or less powerful than Sauron, just that it would have its own power plus that of the Ring, which contained the majority of Sauron's original power. And just as Sauron would have been unstoppable if he'd got the Ring back, so too would a Balrog which got its hands on that much power.

The will of morgoth is vanished to the void, the only evil left is residual from his malice so no "impersonal" evil, its just residual influence. thats all-.

That was what I said: that Morgoth had been cast into the Void and that was why his lasting influence was impersonal (as opposed to personified). No will attached to it, just an all-pervasive taint.

By context, War of Wrath could not be what was meant, as it would not make any sense. Please read before you post.

HoG

No reason to be rude to others.

I figure Smaug was around in the first age, despite there being no proof. He refers to himself as being old, in The Hobbit. That he laid low the warriors old when he was young, and that now he was "Old and strong, strong, strong!" For a dragon to say he is old, I'd think he was at lest 4000-5000 years old.

Now, whether "The Warriors of Old" were those in the War of Wrath or the Dwarves of Erebor or another group entirely, is unknown.

I was under the impression that dragons can live in the range of eight to ten thousand years, and I don't think there's ever been mention of dragons dying of old age, apart from Thorin making the offhand remark that they will guard their gold for as long as they live, which is practically forever unless they're killed.

The author does not specify the birth-date of Smaug anywhere, but we may glean from what is not said, as well as what is said and/or inferred, that Smaug was a Third Age dragon: there is mention of "other" dragons, yet without any reference to Smaug, up to early-3rd-Millenium-Third-Age (the insult of the Eotheod and the dragon-teeth necklace); sometimes what is omitted, itself, speaks volumes.

Now, the Balrog is a creature that is 'enough-like people' to understand how-and-why and to-what-end to use such an artifact, providing he perceived it at all, and also apprehended its significance: this Maia is a creature used to manifesting power, derived naturally from its own fea, through the means of investment in its own hroa, but knows (of) 'people-ways'; 'sword' and 'whip' are tools it is wont to wield, and we can effortlessly presume 'ring' could fall into the same category. As I said earlier, a Balrog with the One Ring would become more-terrible in its native powers by 'an order of magnitude' yet, nevertheless, would not present the same style of threat as Sauron/Saruman/Gandalf, or even one of the high lords of the Eldar.

A Balrog by itself was enough to give Gandalf a fight which he only won by the narrowest of margins and then died. Balrogs didn't just wave red-hot swords, maces and flaming whips around, they had magical powers of their own (as Gandalf found out when the Balrog of Moria used its power to counter the spell he was using to secure the door of the Chamber of Mazarbul - a 'terrible' power that nearly 'broke' him, he said. The only reason it might not present the same style of threat as Sauron would be its motives, what it chose to do with that power - but we know that the Ring would work its will even on Maiar, and even someone who could wield it properly would find themselves acting out the part of Dark Lord sooner or later. The only essential difference was that Balrogs were all about brute force, whereas Sauron was more about guile.

The influence of the One Ring, as portrayed in the text, possesses a certain character, very much as if the Ring itself possessed its own psyche and personality

There's certainly the suggestion that it had some sort of will of its own, but not that it had inherited Sauron's personality as such. If the thing had been a fully conscious entity then the plot would have turned out differently, I'd have thought. It seems to me that it represented Sauron's id, so it operated by instinct.

I am assuming you mean, WotR (War of the Ring), rather than World of Warcraft ...

I meant War of Wrath, because that's what Melkor had his winged firedrakes for and it is where/when he threw them into the fray, surprising and even driving back the Valar's forces until the Eagles arrived. Since Smaug is a winged firedrake I assume he was there too before he escaped. While it may certainly be possible he was simply their offspring born in the Withered Heath, we don't know.

[I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
[/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

I meant War of Wrath .... While it may certainly be possible [Smaug] was ... born in the Withered Heath, we don't know.

Firstly, I'll apologise for stepping on your toes, and on those of LethalLethality, who understood you better than I.

Frankly, I am surprised to hear anyone suggest that Smaug is that old, but only because the notion never (would have) occurred to me: to my knowledge, nothing of this is declared by the author, nor is there any appearance of Smaug in narrative or reference before 3rd Millenium T.A.. Of course, Smaug had to be mentioned in LoTR appendices (and Unfinished Tales, too, I believe) simply in connection to the preludes to the War of the Ring but, otherwise he's only "a character in The Hobbit": on the one hand, I can not insist that he was not alive at the time of the War of Wrath; nor can I characterize 'his absence' in other narratives/chronicles as being 'suspicious'.

On the other hand, I can not conceive of why it would occur to anyone that Smaug could be that old, either. LethalLethality quotes Smaug himself, "warriors of old ... strong, strong, STRONG", but I do not see any implication here, either: Glaurung, 'father of dragons', first appeared (we do not know when he was hatched) in F.A. 455; in F.A. 472 fled the field with a bad dwarf-dagger-induced tummy-ache; in F.A. 495, he installed himself at Nargothrond, and was subsequently slain. However old he was at the time of his death, his 'participation' in the War of the Jewels lasted only 40 years. Ancalagon, 'mightiest of dragons', only appears in the defence of Angband, over Anfauglith, and only during the assault of the War of Wrath, in (presumably) F.A. 587; perhaps Ancalagon, 'mightiest of dragons', was not 'strong, strong, STRONG' but he was evidently 'strong enough' at that time, less than 150 years after the first sighting of the 'father of dragons', to break Thangorodrim when he fell. In FotR, Gandalf mentions that not even Ancalagon could have destroyed the Ruling Ring: Smaug would be 'closer to home' for both Frodo and Gandalf, but Gandalf uses Ancalagon as his example; if Smaug had lived 5000+ more years than both Glaurung and Ancalagon, he sure started out as one heck of a wimpy dragon ...

Originally Posted by LethalLethality

For a dragon to say he is old, I'd think he was at lest 4000-5000 years old

So, nonplussed, I've returned to this, above: why? Smaug's 'career' lasted less than 200 years, T.A. 2770-2941, and that's the longest tenure of any dragon mentioned anywhere in narrative. If Glaurung had been 4000+ years old (and we must presume that the 'father of dragons' had hatched before all notable others) when he attacked Nargothrond, he would have to have hatched at the same time as the awakening of the Elves.

HoG

EDITED for bad math: 171 years is less than 200, not less than 150 ...

If Glaurung had been 4000+ years old (and we must presume that the 'father of dragons' had hatched before all notable others) when he attacked Nargothrond, he would have to have hatched at the same time as the awakening of the Elves.
HoG

Correct.
Glaurung had not been anywhere that old. Melkor returned to Angband from Valinor 3 years prior to the beginning of the years of the Sun in the First Age. Glaurung was first seen in F.A. 260 when he first emerged into Ard Galen and was driven back by the Elves. It was noted he was still very young with not even full scale armour. By F.A. 455 in Dagor Bragollach he was in full strength. Hence Glaurung lived for much less than 500 years in total.

In The Silmarillion the dragons that came against Gondolin were 'of the brood of Glaurung', which 'were become now many and terrible'; whereas in the tale the language employed suggests that some at least of the 'Monsters' were inanimate 'devices', the construction of smiths in the forges of Angband. But even the 'things of iron' that 'opened about their middles' to disgorge bands of Orcs are called 'ruthless beasts', and Gothmog'bade' them 'pile themselves'; those made of bronze or copper 'were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire'; while the 'fire-drake' that Tuor hewed screamed and lashed with its tail
Christopher Tolkien

So Smaug the Magnificent known as "wimpy" is just a "Machine" with a living heart. That explains the dragon breath also.

Very much so, in fact it is the oldest traceable writing by Tolkien about his mythical world. He wrote it on the back of some sheet music in an army barracks in 1917, just a few months after the battle of the Somme, where Tolkien would have encountered tanks for the first time. We should not be surprised then to see these 'devices' appearing in his early writings.
It's interesting that Christopher edited out almost all references to anything that might resemble weapons of 'modern' warfare in the version of the fall of Gondolin which appeared in the Silmarillion.

“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”
- Will Rogers

Firstly, I'll apologise for stepping on your toes, and on those of LethalLethality, who understood you better than I.

Frankly, I am surprised to hear anyone suggest that Smaug is that old, but only because the notion never (would have) occurred to me: to my knowledge, nothing of this is declared by the author, nor is there any appearance of Smaug in narrative or reference before 3rd Millenium T.A.. Of course, Smaug had to be mentioned in LoTR appendices (and Unfinished Tales, too, I believe) simply in connection to the preludes to the War of the Ring but, otherwise he's only "a character in The Hobbit": on the one hand, I can not insist that he was not alive at the time of the War of Wrath; nor can I characterize 'his absence' in other narratives/chronicles as being 'suspicious'.

On the other hand, I can not conceive of why it would occur to anyone that Smaug could be that old, either. LethalLethality quotes Smaug himself, "warriors of old ... strong, strong, STRONG", but I do not see any implication here, either: Glaurung, 'father of dragons', first appeared (we do not know when he was hatched) in F.A. 455; in F.A. 472 fled the field with a bad dwarf-dagger-induced tummy-ache; in F.A. 495, he installed himself at Nargothrond, and was subsequently slain. However old he was at the time of his death, his 'participation' in the War of the Jewels lasted only 40 years. Ancalagon, 'mightiest of dragons', only appears in the defence of Angband, over Anfauglith, and only during the assault of the War of Wrath, in (presumably) F.A. 587; perhaps Ancalagon, 'mightiest of dragons', was not 'strong, strong, STRONG' but he was evidently 'strong enough' at that time, less than 150 years after the first sighting of the 'father of dragons', to break Thangorodrim when he fell. In FotR, Gandalf mentions that not even Ancalagon could have destroyed the Ruling Ring: Smaug would be 'closer to home' for both Frodo and Gandalf, but Gandalf uses Ancalagon as his example; if Smaug had lived 5000+ more years than both Glaurung and Ancalagon, he sure started out as one heck of a wimpy dragon ...

That is the problem; we don't know how Tolkien's dragons age (by which I mean whether they have a peak of power and after a certain age stop growing in power or even start growing older and weaker again like many animals do), nor do we know what age they can reach. For all we know Dragons were similar to Elves and Orcs in that simply "old age" could not off them and they had to be killed by an outside source. We've never seen a Dragon die by natural causes so we can't know exactly how their vital functions work and it's somewhat pointless (but fun) guessing.
As for Smaug not being mentioned, there were numerous unnamed dragons that fought and died during the battle. *If* Smaug was there, he would presumably be pretty young and still anonymous.
Then there's another factor involved; it need not be so that dragons all have the exact same strength and that it grows the same way as they age. There could be a a power difference beteen Ancalagon and Smaug without age playing a role in it. Ancalagon was the "flag ship" of Melkor's dragon fleet, so to speak. Ancalagon was the most powerful, which may be a case of Morgoth having put more effort and time into making him a war force. Smaug (if he was there) and his fellow anonymous dragons may have been the dragon equivalent of cannon fodder vs the Valar. I realise that's an oxymoron because Melkor's dragons and Belryg were already his strongest force, but I mean that within their own ranks there was likely a difference in power between dragons (seeing as Ancalagon was notably stronger than the others). How large the power gap was is anyone's guess though, might have been barely noticable.
But this is of course speculation and we do not have enough info on Tolkien's dragons to come to a certain conclusion on this. There's no way of knowing if Smaug was present during FA or if he was hatched later on.

[I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
[/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

Strictly-speaking, all that you have said is true; however, since what you suggest proves to be too-far-fetched for ready credibility, we should prefer the alternate interpretation which, by the way, is the one universally presented by all "scholars" of Tolkien-lore. We are expected to apply Occam's razor.

I am pleased that Egorvlad refined my "sightings of First Age dragons", adding in a reference that I had forgotten:

Originally Posted by Egorvlad

Glaurung was first seen in F.A. 260 when he first emerged into Ard Galen and was driven back by the Elves.

The debutant fled the Ballroom, presumably in tears, and hid "herself" in the nursery; 195 years later, the no-longer-debutant returned to the Ballroom and kicked everybody else out; sadly, Glaurung "died of a broken (split-through by Turin's sword) heart" outside Nargothrond, 40 years after that.

Yes, Smaug could have been alive in the First Age, but it is ridiculously unlikely, given the "real" dragon information that actually is revealed in narrative. If anyone wishes to believe that Smaug faked his own death and now lives selling T-shirts in Fiji, gee, there's nothing in Tolkien that refutes that, either.

There's no way of knowing if Smaug was present during FA or if he was hatched later on.

True, we have no hard facts.
There are some indications though.
Judging by the 2 most well known dragons, Glaurung and Ancalagon, they seem to reach their prime within 3-4 centuries easily. Yes, they in theory live for milennia and always continue growing gradually, but the main growth spurt and maturation seem to happen within first centuries. Smaug was arguably referred to as young by Thorin at the time of the sacking of Erebor: "Smaug could not creep into a hole that size, not even when he was a young dragon, certainly not after devouring so many of the dwarves and men of Dale". And finally Smaug does not seem to have made any mark in history prior to that and apparently did not have his hoard prior to Erebor.

So from all this *most likely* he was born in the Third Age after all.

Wasn't the Balrog the one that contested Gandalf in a contest of spell casting at a locked door in Moria just after the encounter at Balin's Tomb?

Yes because balrogs are corrupted maiars so they will have the same level of power as Gandalf. So they got a very good match of power. Sauron also was once a balrog. Lets not forget that maiars have the power to change the appearance at will. So what will do a balrog with the 1 ring? That we already found for the time Sauron have it on his grasp & we want to prevent that any balrog get it on his grasps again. Also im so searching for Frodo as Nazgul picture.

Yes because balrogs are corrupted maiars so they will have the same level of power as Gandalf. So they got a very good match of power. Sauron also was once a balrog. Lets not forget that maiars have the power to change the appearance at will. So what will do a balrog with the 1 ring? That we already found for the time Sauron have it on his grasp & we want to prevent that any balrog get it on his grasps again.

No, the Balrogs had started off as spirits of fire (just like Arien the Sun-maiden), whereas Sauron had been much like Saruman's 'real' self, Curumo, except more powerful. The Balrogs went around being all fiery, shady and ultra-violent, whereas Sauron was just plan shady (more the sorcerer type than anything else).

Radhruin beat me to it ...

... pointing-out that Sauron had never been a Balrog. However, this,

Originally Posted by YamydeAragon

Lets not forget that maiars have the power to change the appearance at will.

must be contested.

On the one hand, when the maiar were manipulating ephemeral, insubstantial forms this statement can stand. On the other hand, physical incarnation required a lot of time and/or effort to achieve: Sauron required a lot of time (and the survival of the One Ring, which contained a substantial portion of his original native power, was also necessary) to re-manifest after the Downfall of Numenor, and he indeed became restricted in that he could no longer assume a beautiful form; cast down by the heroes of the Last Alliance, with his Ring 'stolen' (but, again, not destroyed), he required c. 1000 years to 'compose himself' yet again. The Istari were sent to Middle-Earth in shapes ordained for them by the Valar, and Gandalf was able to reincarnate as 'the White' only because he was 'sent back', 'his task unfinished'; even so, it is apparent in the narrative that Gandalf's transformation left him "discombobulated", and he needed time to collect and order his sensibilities, and recall the memories of his former incarnation.

I do wish to add clarification to the other issue: a Balrog had chosen (likely at Melkor's urging) to seize power in an entirely corporal manner, by investing its energy into an 'awe/fear-inspiring hroa of great strength and power'; Sauron's choice was the more-subtle one, preserving his innate 'maia-perspicacity' of thought and form, becoming 'sorceror', 'necromancer', and 'ring-maker'.